<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2016 (12) TMI 275 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335630</link>
    <description>Cement clearances made directly by the manufacturer to institutional consumers and actual users were treated as eligible for the concessional duty rate under Notification No. 4/2007-CE, because the benefit was linked to direct sales to service industry or industrial customers. The Revenue&#039;s objection failed where it did not show that the Tribunal decision relied on by the original authority had been overruled, and the challenge to reliance on the Board circular was rejected. As direct sales to actual users did not amount to retail sale under Rule 2(q) of the Packaged Commodity Rules, 1977, the basis for denying the concession was not established, and the dropped demand was upheld.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 28 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 06 Dec 2016 13:31:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=450705" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2016 (12) TMI 275 - CESTAT NEW DELHI</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335630</link>
      <description>Cement clearances made directly by the manufacturer to institutional consumers and actual users were treated as eligible for the concessional duty rate under Notification No. 4/2007-CE, because the benefit was linked to direct sales to service industry or industrial customers. The Revenue&#039;s objection failed where it did not show that the Tribunal decision relied on by the original authority had been overruled, and the challenge to reliance on the Board circular was rejected. As direct sales to actual users did not amount to retail sale under Rule 2(q) of the Packaged Commodity Rules, 1977, the basis for denying the concession was not established, and the dropped demand was upheld.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Central Excise</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 28 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=335630</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>